Recent Articleshttp://prospect.org/authors/127386/rss.xml
The American Prospect - articles by authorenPeer Power: Facebook, Voting, and Social Influencehttp://prospect.org/article/peer-power-facebook-voting-and-social-influence-0
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-09/uoc--fft090912.php">A new study from the University of California, San Diego</a>, shows how a Facebook get-out-the-vote campaign can have a tangible impact on voter turnout—but only when there’s a certain sort of social component to it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The researchers conducted an experiment on every American Facebook user who was 18 or older during the 2010 congressional elections—more than 61 million people. Most people in the group saw a message at the top of their News Feed that</p>
<blockquote><p>encouraged the user to vote, provided a link to find local polling places, showed a clickable button reading ‘I voted’, showed a counter indicating how many other Facebook users had previously reported voting, and displayed up to six small randomly selected ‘profile pictures’ of the user’s Facebook friends who had already clicked the I Voted button.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another group (which the researchers call the ‘information-only group’ in the paper) saw a similar message, but without pictures of their friends, and a final, control group didn’t see any message at all.</p>
<p>The results?</p>
<p>The users in the social group were about 2% more likely to have clicked the “I Voted” button than were users in the information-only group, and 0.39% more likely to have actually voted (the researchers, knowing that self-reporting was not a sufficient measure here, tracked down public voting records and matched them to the names of Facebook users to determine who had actually voted). Interestingly, the voting gap between the social group and the control group was also 0.39%, suggesting that the information-only campaign had no effect on actual voting behavior.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that the closer a given user was to a Facebook friend who reported having voted (as measured by their Facebook interactions), the more likely it was the voting effect would be contagious. In other words, my own behavior is more likely to change if I see that one of my best friends has voted than if I see that a Facebook friend who I met once at a party has voted.</p>
<p>One of the authors of the paper, James H. Fowler, a Professor of Medical Genetics and Political Science at UCSD, explained to me that his team’s result was part of a broader trend in the study of voting.</p>
<blockquote><p>“There’s been a shift in political science away from thinking that voting is a rational cost-benefit decision to one that’s really a social decision,” he said. “We vote because our friends are. And I think that this study really supports that growing research.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One obvious way this effect was highlighted in the study was the fact that, among the folks who received the socially oriented message, there was a much greater increase in the percentage of subjects who <em>reported</em> having voted via Facebook than the there was an increase in people who actually voted. So in situations where our behavior is public, we’re very concerned with acting in a way that conforms to local group norms—or at least giving the impression that we are. This is a powerful potential leverage point for policy makers designing interventions, whether we’re talking about voting, bullying, <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/11/can-facebook-make-you-quit-smoking.html">smoking</a>, or any behavior with a public component.</p>
<p>Now, there are a couple notes of caution here. One is that the effect wasn’t all that large (though Fowler argued that over a large population, the numbers could easily add up, which is true). The other is that, when it comes to voting, the underlying demographic story should cause us to be much more concerned about turnout among underrepresented and disenfranchised groups than those who already have a seat at the table. But because of the way social networks work, it’s very easy for a given “treatment” to only spread among a population that doesn’t need the treatment in question.</p>
<p>That is, I vote and most of my friends vote, so you’re not going to get much mileage out of seeding my social network with a pro-voting intervention. It might be tougher to reach the people who need and would benefit most from the intervention.</p>
<p>On the other hand, this will be less of an issue as researchers get better and better at microtargeting certain nodes in a network, and it does nothing to detract from the key takeaway: social influences may be a much more potent tool for increasing voter turnout than blunter informational campaigns.</p>
<p>As Fowler put it, when it comes to these sorts of interventions, “if you’re not doing something social, you may not be doing anything at all.”</p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 14 Sep 2012 20:35:50 +0000214634 at http://prospect.orgJesse SingalScapegoating Campus Feministshttp://prospect.org/article/scapegoating-campus-feminists
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The women's studies department at George Washington University certainly doesn't come across as a threatening institution. Overshadowed even on its own block by the large, glassy Benjamin T. Rome Hall and the Smith Hall of Art, the small, white brick townhouse at the corner of 22nd and Eye streets NW doesn't even contain the offices of most of the faculty listed on the department's Web site.</p>
<p>And yet, last Wednesday, students associated with the conservative <a href="http://www.yaf.org/">Young America's Foundation</a> (YAF) protested outside the department as a light rain fell, arguing that it was hindering the United States’ attempts to fight Islamic extremism. The students were participating in Islamo-fascism Awareness Week, a national event launched by David Horowitz's <a href="http://www.terrorismawareness.org/">Terrorism Awareness Project</a> (an offshoot of his Horowitz Freedom Center) "to confront the two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat." </p>
<p>Sergio Gor, president of the YAF chapter at GWU, explained why the small group of protesters chose that particular corner to pass out pamphlets and collect signatures on their <a href="http://www.terrorismawareness.org/petitions/63/islamo-fascism-petition/">petition</a> denouncing Islamo-fascism. "We're here in front of the women's studies department, which is filled with self-described feminists," he said, "and yet you don't hear them condemning radical Islam. Why are they not speaking out louder for women's rights?" </p>
<p>Horowitz told <a href="http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/09/islam"><i>Inside Higher Ed</i></a> that, during Islamo-fascism Awareness Week, students at individual schools would research whether their campus' women's studies department addressed the issue of women in Islam, and would protest those that do not. "Women's studies, as everybody knows ... are about unequal power, the oppression of women, so if they don't have a course on oppression of women in Islam, they should," said Horowitz. </p>
<p>This makes GWU somewhat of an odd choice for this particular protest. Kelly Pemberton, an associate professor of religion and a member of the women's studies department, teaches a course called "Women in Islam." So it's not as though the subject goes unaddressed at GWU. </p>
<p>Though GWU's Islamo-fascism Awareness Week included other activities -- a counter-terrorism panel, a Horowitz speech, and a movie screening -- the small protest outside the women's studies department was the only action by YAF that specifically addressed academics at the university. This was no accident, as the marching orders to target women's studies departments came directly from Horowitz's national campaign. </p>
<p>But YAF's protest seemed to be more about hurt feelings than the department itself. Gor couldn't name any particular women's studies professors with whose work he disagreed. Rather, he said the source of YAF's dissatisfaction with the department stemmed from the fact that, when YAF contacted the department looking for support and co-sponsors for Islamo-fascism Awareness Week, the department never responded. </p>
<p>And Iris Somberg, YAF's vice president at GWU, said that the fact that the department had a course about women and Islam did not absolve it of guilt. "It's not that they don't have the class, it's that they have not come out denouncing these acts," she said. In other words, YAF was less concerned with whether or not the topic of women in Islam was discussed at GWU than with whether the women's studies department agreed to join in with their specific campaign. </p>
<p>"We picked out different parts [of Horowitz's campaign] that were applicable to GW," said Somberg. "So we decided to ask them to condemn acts against women, not because they don't have awareness about the subject, but because they would not take a stand on the issue." </p>
<p>Like Gor, Somberg couldn't cite any specific professor as failing to meet YAF's criteria for proper awareness (nor could she name any professors within the department). "I just think that the entire department should at the very least condemn the acts that are occurring against women in the Islamic world," she said. </p>
<p>Daniel Moshenberg, the director of the department and an associate professor of English at GWU, said he had never heard from YAF, and challenged the organization's critique of his department. "We are a program that studies and promotes and researches and even helps write public policy from the various perspectives of women, of those who support women, and of feminists more generally," Moshenberg said. "And within that, we are always debating questions of women's rights and human rights of all sorts, here and everywhere else in the world, and it's an ongoing and vibrant debate." </p>
<p>So it's unclear what exactly Horowitz, Gor, and YAF have to complain about, unless they expect women's studies departments to denounce Islam <i>qua</i> Islam. Tactically, though, their approach makes sense. It usefully updates one of the most tried and true conservative narratives: that college campuses are breeding grounds for those who sympathize with America's enemies. Horowitz, not exactly an innovator, has brought Cold War-era campus fear-mongering into the 21st century, and his views fit nicely into the popular hard-right meme that post-9-11 liberals are so disgusted with America that they actually hope Islamic terrorists succeed in destroying it. (Indeed, <a href="http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/FlexPage.aspx?area=new">Horowitz's site</a> mentions the "‘unholy alliance' between campus leftists and jihadists seeking to undermine the War on Terror.") </p>
<p>The issue of women's rights serves as a useful vehicle for Islamo-fascism Awareness Week's agenda. By starting from a point that nearly everyone can agree with, regardless of political affiliation -- that women in many foreign countries and in much of the Muslim world are not treated well -- Horowitz is attempting to open up his ideas to a more moderate audience. </p>
<p>But his is not a moderate movement. Gor may have led a quiet, peaceful protest, and may have described YAF (however laughably) as a "nonpartisan" organization, but the materials he and his colleagues were distributing didn't criticize fundamentalist Islam, they decried the religion itself. According to one pamphlet, "<a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4EB8212C-0E9E-4EE4-BD56-55D1E9FCFC56">The Violent Oppression Of Women In Islam</a>," (coauthored by Robert Spencer, who also wrote <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Peace-Christianity-Islam-Isnt/dp/1596985151/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6799082-1082349?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1193435478&amp;sr=8-1">Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't</a></i>) "Islamic gender apartheid is ... indigenous to Islam both theologically and historically." In "<a href="http://www.terrorismawareness.org/ammunition/">What Americans Need To Know About Jihad</a>," also by Spencer and also distributed at the GWU protest, he asserts that "jihadis" and "their allies in the American and European Left have learned to portray themselves as victims and their actions as an effort to fight back against colonial oppression." </p>
<p>However, in targeting women's studies departments, Horowitz and his underlings may have brushed up against a legitimate debate, if accidentally. Pemberton, the professor who teaches the GWU course on Islam and gender, said she couldn't help but agree with a sliver of YAF and Horowitz's argument. "I think, certainly in the recent past, there has been a tendency among many people -- certainly not just feminists and not just people who study the Muslim world -- to justify or turn a blind eye to certain practices with the reasoning that, 'Well, you know, this is somebody else's culture, and who are we to say anything about it?'" she said. </p>
<p>Certainly not all women's studies academics would agree that this controversy exists as Pemberton described it -- Moshenberg, for one, did not -- but it may have served as the impetus for Horowitz's decision to have Islamo-fascism Awareness Week, which deals almost entirely in abstractions, generalities, and false conflations, hone in so specifically on one area of study. It provided a trap door, in other words, for the thoroughly anti-intellectual term "Islamo-fascism" to work its way into an academic debate. </p>
<p>Horowitz may argue otherwise, but it's clear that Western academics are engaged in an ongoing discussion about women's rights in the Muslim world. According to Pemberton, the best hope for more constructive dialogue on this topic is for people to understand the nuances involved. She said there's "a real tendency to go in terms of one or two poles when discussing the question of women in Islam," in which people either deny the existence of any problem whatsoever vis-à-vis women's rights and Islam as it is practiced in much of the world, or reactively decide that the religion and its symbols (such as the veil) are inherently oppressive. </p>
<p>"There's no sense of where the grey areas are," she said, "of where they exist, how circumstances change, and how, in some cases, what we're talking about is not necessarily something that's evenly done across the board. There are class differences, there are ethnic differences, there are all kinds of differences." </p>
<p>These distinctions are what make the subject of women in Islam so vexing -- and so thoroughly ill-suited to Horowitz's desire to sweep into a single category anyone associated with Islam who opposes American policy. Of course the subject of women and Islam is worthy of a nuanced, reasoned discussion. But Horowitz is probably the person least likely to provoke such a discussion, especially under the banner of "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week."</p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:07:05 +0000146754 at http://prospect.orgJesse SingalA New Group with an Old Message on the Warhttp://prospect.org/article/new-group-old-message-war
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>"I know what I lost," intones a stoic-sounding young Iraq war veteran via voiceover as he limps out his front door and struggles down his stairs on two prosthetic legs. "I also know that if we pull out now, everything I've given and sacrificed will mean nothing."</p>
<p>Then, a warning: "They attacked us, and they will again. They won't stop in Iraq. We are winning on the ground and making real progress. It's no time to quit -- it's no time for politics." </p>
<p>This television ad is one of four being broadcast by Freedom's Watch, a new organization seeking to halt the hemorrhaging of support for Bush's Iraq and Afghanistan policies, and to make life easier for pro-Iraq war lawmakers. </p>
<p>Freedom's Watch announced in a <a href="http://web17.streamhoster.com/ddc/FW/docs/Freedoms_Watch_Release.pdf">press release</a> on Wednesday that it is "launching a nationwide grassroots campaign aimed at ensuring Congress continues to fully fund the troops with the ultimate goal of victory in the War on Terror." The release notes that the group plans to spend $15 million "on radio and television ads as well as grassroots activities" in a public relations blitz that will wrap up in mid-September. </p>
<p>"We're trying to reach the fair-minded American, regardless of party," said Freedom's Watch President Brad Blakeman. "And the message is one that is delivered eloquently by those people who appear in our ads, and that is surrender is not an option." </p>
<p>Blakemen said that Freedom's Watch was concerned that previously pro-war members of Congress could feel heat from their constituents and end up switching sides during the next Iraq vote. The group, therefore, is looking to send a message to lawmakers that "switching votes for political reasons is unacceptable." </p>
<p>Though the group's immediate focus is on Congress and managing the impact of Gen. David Petraeus's upcoming report on progress in Iraq, it's impossible to look at Freedom's Watch and not see the first stage of a long, difficult effort on the part of conservatives to smooth the path for a pro-war presidential candidate. The eventual GOP nominee will, after all, enter the general election hindered by a giant albatross. Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and the as-yet-unannounced Fred Thompson have all made support of the Iraq war a central part of their campaigns. </p>
<p>The four frontrunners have eagerly embraced the Bush administration's long-standing Iraq narrative: There is nothing optional about this fight. It is, rather, part of our existential struggle in the War on Terror -- a war from which we cannot afford to walk away. On the primary campaign trail, it isn't a liability for the four candidates to parrot this line; Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Thompson are all jockeying for votes from likely GOP primary voters, a group whose opinion on the war diverges wildly from that of Americans as a whole. A <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/02/opinion/main3126914.shtml">recent CBS News poll</a> shows that 53 percent of Republican voters think the Iraq war is going well, and an astounding 73 percent describe invading Iraq as having been the right thing to do. </p>
<p>Republican voters stand in contrast to the resounding pessimism most Americans feel about the war -- in another <a href="http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm">recent poll</a>, only 29 percent said they thought the war was going well, and 43 percent thought invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Looking at these numbers, it becomes clear just how alien an environment the Republican nominee will find himself in once the primary dust settles. Freedom's Watch may currently bill itself as primarily a pre-Petraeus-report attempt to galvanize public support for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but it will also be participating in a much more comprehensive effort to increase the odds that an unapologetically pro-war Republican can survive once he has exited the comfy confines of the primary race. Blakeman was clear about the group's long-term plans. "We'll have a presence, absolutely, in 2008 and beyond," he said. </p>
<p>TV ads, of course, will form a large part of that presence. According to the <i>New York Times</i>, the Freedom's Watch ads, which began airing on August 22, will run in more than 20 states and in 60 congressional districts (Blakeman wouldn't say anything about the sorts of districts targeted -- only that they were both Democratic and Republican.). The spots, which are available on the Freedom's Watch <a href="http://www.freedomswatch.com/video.aspx">website</a>, tell familiar tales. All four utilize the well-worn arguments for continuing the war: Exiting Iraq would endanger America; ending the war would "dishonor" the thousands of young soldiers who have been killed and maimed in combat; and, since we're finally making progress in Iraq, now is not the time to bail. </p>
<p>The commercials may not be saying anything new, but they are packaged in a visceral, heartbreaking way. Two are narrated by soldiers who lost the use of their legs in Iraq, and one is narrated by the mother of a dead soldier. In another, a woman discusses how she lost her uncle, a firefighter, on 9/11, and her husband, a soldier, in Iraq. "Congress did the right thing, voting to defeat terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan," she says. "Switching their votes now, for political reasons, it will mean more attacks in America." </p>
<p>The strategy here seems simple: Freedom's Watch is attempting to breathe new life into justifications for the Iraq war that are no longer resonant for most Americans. Anyone who has turned on a TV since 2003 has heard these arguments, all of which were adopted en masse by right-wing pundits and administration officials. Freedom's Watch seems to be hoping that, by bringing the conversation back down to the level of individual soldiers who have fought and died in Iraq, and their families, these narratives can regain their potency. </p>
<p>It's certainly a curious tactic. The group is, in effect, doubling down on a PR strategy that has already failed -- not among hard-line, ardently pro-war Republicans, but among the ads' targeted audience: moderate Republican voters who have turned against the war or who are thinking about it. Given that these voters have already been saturated with the same tired pro-war canards since 2003, it's hard to imagine that this last-ditch effort will sway them back toward the faithful. </p>
<p>But whether or not this short-term effort succeeds, the larger Republican strategy vis-à-vis the war is sure to adapt. The "long, hard slog" Donald Rumsfeld predicted back in 2003 may be an apt description of the Republican nominee's attempts to navigate his pro-war record, but groups like Freedom's Watch -- and its inevitable descendants -- will be providing cover every step of the way.</p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:59:35 +0000146576 at http://prospect.orgJesse Singal